I bid on HIS WEDDING NIGHT but when I learned that the "lost material" wasn't lost I pulled out - lucky for the winner
I bet I know who got it though. Still, I am not keen on keeping nitrate in my house so I'd only go for it if it was of importance for what I'm working on - as in sharing it with everyone ! People who work with film tend to keep things secret for good reason btw. - I've learned that the hard way. Don't be hard on your fellow film enthusiasts, most of us probably just have to protect our work, we only want what is best for everyone in the end.

There's only one known 35mm element on Why Girls Love Sailors; this will be the second. The same may go for You're Darn Tootin'. Preserving these is extremely important to the legacy of Laurel and Hardy.

The prints looks like shot from camera negative, and have very good dynamic range, judging by the photos took from the print.
These films prints need to be compared (homologated) to check if they have missing scens, alternated scenes, different camera angle (second negative), frames that was missing in the other print, or if the image quality its better.

Big Business was preserved from a fine grain shot from camera negative, am I right ?
If even the Golden AGe of Comedy used camera negative to shot fine grain stock for the Big Business scenes.

Why nobody from Laurel & Hardy restoration project was contacted ???

I'm in favor of get or preserve new prints, even if the ones already in archives have the same sharpness, frame area, and lenght and derived from the same version. Reasons :

-The new print can be richer in hightlighs details or shadow details, or just overal dynamic.
-The new print can have less grain, depending of the stock used.
-It can be, in theory (maybe near future) digitally combined with the archive print in order to mergue the best characteristics of both materials.
-There is algoritims today that allow combine frames tom extract more details, if the frames are very similar. It was used in restorations by Lowry Digital. This same technology could, in theory, allow to fuse two good prints (similar one to each other) to have details closer to the camera negative. For the future, cause it's still very expansive today.

Last edited by All Darc on Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Since here are many film collectors her, I have a idea that may help find out some thing, in terms of 35mm findings, like if the image quality (resolution) is better or worse than material in archives.

Many shots they took from 35mm frames are using cell phones or cameras without resolution and lens to shot from very close and give a good idea of picture quality.

1. Without disclosing the buyer, the print of "Why Girls Love Sailors" has been shipped to Los Angeles from Europe and will be used for our ongoing Laurel & Hardy restoration project with UCLA in the near future.

2. I do not have any knowledge of where the other two L&H nitrates wound up.

3. The silent Laurel & Hardy's are indeed part of our restoration efforts. We recently finished doing a full restoration on "The Battle of the Century", going back to the nitrate Reel One and doing a full cleanup on the entire show. It will be shown at the Film Forum in NYC on Sunday, February 25th, on a double bill with our new "Sons of the Desert" restoration.

4. We do our digital work on top of UCLA's excellent film preservation and restoration efforts. But that has to come first, before we can do the digital work. To that end, UCLA desperately needs funding for this ongoing effort. Tax deductible donations can be made at:

1. Without disclosing the buyer, the print of "Why Girls Love Sailors" has been shipped to Los Angeles from Europe and will be used for our ongoing Laurel & Hardy restoration project with UCLA in the near future.

2. I do not have any knowledge of where the other two L&H nitrates wound up.

3. The silent Laurel & Hardy's are indeed part of our restoration efforts. We recently finished doing a full restoration on "The Battle of the Century", going back to the nitrate Reel One and doing a full cleanup on the entire show. It will be shown at the Film Forum in NYC on Sunday, February 25th, on a double bill with our new "Sons of the Desert" restoration.

4. We do our digital work on top of UCLA's excellent film preservation and restoration efforts. But that has to come first, before we can do the digital work. To that end, UCLA desperately needs funding for this ongoing effort. Tax deductible donations can be made at:

Jeff, thanks for the update. As you can see from this thread, there's been a good deal of interest in these nitrate copies and given the public appeals made for cooperation here, your comments are, I believe, warranted and welcome.

Bob

Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world's not.
-- A.E. Housman

1. Without disclosing the buyer, the print of "Why Girls Love Sailors" has been shipped to Los Angeles from Europe and will be used for our ongoing Laurel & Hardy restoration project with UCLA in the near future.

2. I do not have any knowledge of where the other two L&H nitrates wound up.

3. The silent Laurel & Hardy's are indeed part of our restoration efforts. We recently finished doing a full restoration on "The Battle of the Century", going back to the nitrate Reel One and doing a full cleanup on the entire show. It will be shown at the Film Forum in NYC on Sunday, February 25th, on a double bill with our new "Sons of the Desert" restoration.

4. We do our digital work on top of UCLA's excellent film preservation and restoration efforts. But that has to come first, before we can do the digital work. To that end, UCLA desperately needs funding for this ongoing effort. Tax deductible donations can be made at:

Do you know if the 9.5 mm Pathex short "Restless Romance 1924" with Stan Laurel is rare or available everywhere? I had Jack Hardy transfer it for me last year @ 4.5 minutes of footage as flash titles lengthened. Can't be too rare if it is on 9.5 mm? Perhaps this was a home version under this title for a different film?

Mark Hamilton (I) is on imdb.com
Joseph Hamilton (I) is on imdb.com
Gertrude Brooke Hamilton is on imdb.com

I said I would send an update of the prints that I won from this auction after checking. I received the prints a few days ago, and here is what I have found in the prints I won.
- You're darn tootin" : Strangely, the same print that already survives in many archives, with the same defects. 1st generation off the neg, but on nitrate stock. Later print.
- Frozen hearts. Nothing special, 1st generation off the neg, lots of missing parts (bad splices), and end and beginning also missing. The only good news is the proof that the film was tinted. Otherwise, useless. Expensive for something we already knew from the stills on the auction link.
- His wedding night - this is the source from the only surviving preservation so far. And if the preservation looks very mediocre, that's because this print, which is a later printing on nitrate stock, is equally ugly. Too many generations far away from the neg. Nothing special.
- Big business. A wreck, 6 generations down from the neg, at least, and only half of the film (not only the beginning and the end were shorts, but the seller did not mention that 7 or 8 minutes are missing in the middle), and full of bad splices.

You cannot win all the time, but the way the items are described lead to confusion. I am not very happy with these items. All in all, a waste of money.

It would be nice if there was a worldwide data base (to register the existence of the title) like the concept that the website "silent era.com" uses to list the status of a film (PD versus unknown, etc.) or even a version of the film in a different language. I don't know if that would solve the "rare" definition debate, but just an idea dumb or not.

Mark Hamilton (I) is on imdb.com
Joseph Hamilton (I) is on imdb.com
Gertrude Brooke Hamilton is on imdb.com

Hamilton's Grandson wrote:It would be nice if there was a worldwide data base (to register the existence of the title) like the concept that the website "silent era.com" uses to list the status of a film (PD versus unknown, etc.) or even a version of the film in a different language. I don't know if that would solve the "rare" definition debate, but just an idea dumb or not.

There is, FIAF, but it's never going to be complete ever as there's not enough resource to ID and register every single surviving title in the world. Also FIAF is not open to just anyone - that is the biggest flaw as far as I'm concerned. I think it would help a lot if everyone could access the website if only to look up titles. Surely we do not want something like Wiki where anyone can edit as they like - I can very well imagine how that would end up. FIAF is a database for archives to register what titles they have. Just google it for more info.

Thanks Annichen for the information. I agree there should be a better way of obtaining information.

I use very ocassionally for short silent films, "Treasures from the Film Archives by Magliozzi (1988), but it could use some updating and just gives the producer, director, country of origin, and perhaps the Archive if known.